An Ode to Merry St. Nick

Another holdiay season comes to a close. Now that we're done picking up the scraps after (what I found to be mediocre) boxing week sales and all the turkey leftovers are eaten in lunches, we can start to reflect on the year it's been and the year to come. Start making those resolutions; you know we do them every year. One thing I always want to do is shoot more. Shoot more. Learn more. It's really that simple. It's too easy to sit around for hours reading about blogs and other professionals' work. There's so many impressive blogs and photographers going on destination weddings, doing commercial work in New Zealand, and doing feature projects all over Europe. In our slow shooting times we lie back and daydream of that "good life" and "how nice it would be". But these professionals got to where they are by shooting. They are so incredible because they shoot every single day. So my outlook for 2009? A lot more shooting, a lot more blogging, and a lot more sharing.

On the note of sharing, there's no video this time around (sorry folks), but some pictures of Christmas past:

And as always at the end...photography/gear/methods talk:

Those shots were all done with the (now returned) Sony 24-70mm f/2.8. Likely one of my favorite lenses ever held/tried/drooled over. By far the best zoom I've ever tried. I will definitely be renting it for all my future events/shoots. The Sony 70-200 mm 2.8G is my next lens to rent, but I'm not usually using that focal length, but it too is an incredible lens. I originally shot Canon, but got incredibly frustrated with the 20D I used to own. It's extremely well made and ergonomically designed, but the pictures to my eye seemed flat. Very flat. Their lens system was also out of reach for my budget. Sony/Minolta re-spurred my interest in photography. After seeing the "minolta colours" with my 50 mm prime, and seeing how ergonomic it is (even more so than the Canon), I was hooked. But now, I find that the Sony system has two very significant gaps. As I improve and seek better equipment to keep up, these gaps are really enticing me to move to another system.

1: ISO Performance: No Sony camera can really match the ISO performance of something like their counter-system counterpart. I wouldn't dare shoot at over ISO400. At 800 and up I just think the noise isn't acceptable. Even with the new A900 I've read and seen that up to 1600 is decent. My shooting style doesn't need a 24.6 megapixel sensor, and for the same price, I think that a D3 or D300 would suit my needs better. Usable 6400 and 3200 ISO? Yes please.

2: Mid-range lenses: while I love my vintage glass and the expensive sony glass, a real large gap that I miss in the Sony line-up are mid-range prime lenses. The mid-range zoom component is nicely filled by third party companies. Sure, the line-up is supplemented with old Minolta glass. But as that glass becomes more and more expensive (many on par with new counterparts), I don't think that's a viable reason anymore. Older minolta lenses for the most part sill use older motor systems, leading to noisier, less precise and lower auto-focus functions. They also lack the newest coatings and specialty glass like low-dispersion lenses. The usefulness of these features may be significantly over-flaunted by camera companies to sell more glass, but they're still significant nonetheless. Eventually, like all good old glass from other systems; they will be replaced. There's still adaptors and such, but that's less for professional usage and more for the hobbyist placement. Professionals will always need the newest technology to keep up with the market's standard offerings. Albeit Sony hasn't yet accepted that there is a "professional" line-up as of yet. They're currently in the paradigm of getting professionals interested in the system, maybe rent it for a bit and keep their eyes out. It wouldn't surprise me that in 5 years or so they'll be quite advanced; how far advanced relative to Sony and Nikon will yet to be seen. They still have large holes in their line-up to fill before that comes of age. I know I have a few lenses in my wish list:

> A 35mm f/2. Yes, there's the minolta one, but it's wayyyy out of its own price range. I'd rather invest in the newer sigma 30mm f/1.4.

> A 85mm f/1.8; really a gap here; even in the minolta line-up.

> A 50mm prime. Yes, there's the 1.7, but the Sony 1.4 is disappointing from what I've read; it's solely based on the old minolta design

> A mid-range zoom, for cropped bodies, alike the 50-150mm f/2.8 Sigma, or the 17-50 Tamron

> More wide-angle offerings; a 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 isn't exactly ideal for low-light work, although the third party manufacturers are putting out some great stuff now

New camera technology comes down to two three factors: megapixels, picture quality and low-light performance. So in essence, you're paying for: a large or full-frame sensor with more pixels, sharper lenses/higher quality ones overall and better ISO performance. The true test of the technology in a camera is its low-light performance. Even the oldest cameras set to ISO100 in good light with decent glass at a high aperture can take very nice pictures. The rest is how well you can take pictures in low-light. (Note, this is from my event perspective, something say for sports benefits significantly more from improved frame rates or better autofocusing). Sony has decent ISO performance and a lack of some new mid-range glass. As I do more professional work, it's a difficult decision as to wait along with the Sony system to see it develop until I can afford to own incredibly expensive glass, or switch to another system in order to take advantage of its more professionally-tailored offerings.

Decisions...decisions...decisions...